Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

ALL

I recently found a link on the Windows Web Site to download the beta
version of Service Pack 2 for XP. It is a very large download. SP2
installed itself without any fuss. However, it appears that in the never
ending drive to control all aspects of software programming, Microsoft is
now attempting to control the anti-virus and firewall sector too.

I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in Europe
have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include it's
browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead of
expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
added a "Security Center" to Windows XP. This contains a Microsoft firewall
and anti-virus program. You are able to disable them, however, you get the
standard type of arrogant Microsoft warning that the world will come to an
end if you do not use their product. I had to struggle for a while to get
my Norton products and cable internet connection to work after installing
the SP2 pack. The internet connection was never stable.

The presence of these new wonder programs causes some conflicts with
those of us who have used either Norton or MacAfee products for years. One
of the "Critical Updates" allows Windows XP to function if the user chooses
to use MacAfee software rather the built in Microsoft program ! So now
Microsoft knows more about internet protection programming than those
software companies who have specialized in this area for years and years. I
wish that they knew more about writing safe operating system software.

Other than some cosmetic changes, I could not find too many visible
changes in SP2. The driver update interface was changed, and it does allow
more functional options than previous Windows XP versions.

A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems to
be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to check my
drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if did
not fix them.

The one nice thing is that you can uninstall this new Microsoft bunch of
bites. After trying for about a week to stabilize my system, I went ahead
and uninstalled SP2. Of course Microsoft has to have the final word. A
message box appears after you select to uninstall SP2 that lists just about
every program you have installed on your computer. This warning states that
if you uninstall SP2, there is a very real danger that these programs will
never work again! Guess what? They all still do, and the "Blue Screens of
Death", multiple driver warnings and internet instability have all gone
away! System stability has returned to the level it was at before my great
experiment.

It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software as
foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell and
whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are listening,
stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the first
place, and work on your operating system.

For those of you brave souls who do try SP2 Beta, good luck. I ghosted
my main drive to a backup disk prior to installing SP2. I would still do
this in case you chose to uninstall SP2 and cannot do so for some reason. I
am going to think long and hard before adding the finalized version of SP2
to my current Windows program.

Dave

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

> I recently found a link on the Windows Web Site to download the beta
> version of Service Pack 2 for XP.
If you're not a part of the beta testing program, you actually had no
business upgrading your own "production" system. It's a "beta", so your
first mistake is not to install it in a test machine.

If you had the faintest idea about a beta testing process works, you
shouldn't be complaining publically, but to send your data to the beta
testing ref, waiting for feedback on a particular bug.

I won't even bother to point out your own other mistakes that lead to your
own dissapointment...

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:23:48 +0200, "Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio"
<ltkojakLEDITA@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I recently found a link on the Windows Web Site to download the beta
>> version of Service Pack 2 for XP.
>If you're not a part of the beta testing program, you actually had no
>business upgrading your own "production" system. It's a "beta", so your
>first mistake is not to install it in a test machine.
>
>If you had the faintest idea about a beta testing process works, you
>shouldn't be complaining publically, but to send your data to the beta
>testing ref, waiting for feedback on a particular bug.
>
>I won't even bother to point out your own other mistakes that lead to your
>own dissapointment...


hehehe... tell him, Pepe!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

> hehehe... tell him, Pepe!

:-)

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
> ALL
> snip
>
> I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in Europe
> have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
it's
> browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
> integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead of
> expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
> added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
>

What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as Windows
users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of its
users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating system
and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to do
these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what he
doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.

snip

> A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
to
> be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
> began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to check
my
> drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
> changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if did
> not fix them.

You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
ready for events such as this - and you were!
>
> It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software as
> foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
and
> whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
listening,
> stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
> making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
> other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the first
> place, and work on your operating system.
>
snip

I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum were
born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand more
and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that demand.
When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.

People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now, but
I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs add-ons
to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts. Give
it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
and Linux does this very well.

I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would be
the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
doesn't provide that.

Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are doing
OK.

DDDD

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

May be there should be 1 more version of windowsXp.
Other than Home and Professional, which are almost identical. There should
be an Expert Edition released..
With reduced price, not including wmp, moviemaker, ie6, outlook ex, msn
explorer, cd-burning, window-update, auto-adjusting time, and all those bs
that annoy power users.
Maybe include more detailed options for file-assosiation, drivers,
networking and so on.

But that's just asking too much from MS


"DDDD" <someone@some.one> wrote in message
news:b29e3$4092b502$45234b46$18895@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> "me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
> > ALL
> > snip
> >
> > I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in
Europe
> > have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
> it's
> > browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
> > integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead
of
> > expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
> > added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
> >
>
> What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as
Windows
> users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
> that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of
its
> users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating
system
> and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
> program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
> software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
> when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to
do
> these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
> EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what
he
> doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.
>
> snip
>
> > A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
> to
> > be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
> > began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to
check
> my
> > drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
> > changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if
did
> > not fix them.
>
> You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
> ready for events such as this - and you were!
> >
> > It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software
as
> > foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
> and
> > whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
> listening,
> > stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
> > making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
> > other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the
first
> > place, and work on your operating system.
> >
> snip
>
> I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
> for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum
were
> born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
> is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
> write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
> another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand
more
> and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that
demand.
> When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.
>
> People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
> operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now,
but
> I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
> would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs
add-ons
> to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts.
Give
> it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
> and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
> for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
> and Linux does this very well.
>
> I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
> it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
> other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
> virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
> some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
> because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would
be
> the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
> doesn't provide that.
>
> Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
> unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
> difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are
doing
> OK.
>
> DDDD
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

IMO...... It's Bill's product and he can package it and make it into any
form he wants. If you don't like it, then go buy a MAC and may god be with
you on your quest for the holy grail of bug free anything.


Hell.......why dont we petition GM for putting too many bells and whistles
in their luxury cars.........Options and numbers sell, plain and simple. It
has always been this way. The bigger the number stamped on the box or the
more features it has will sell like hotcakes.




"DDDD" <someone@some.one> wrote in message
news:b29e3$4092b502$45234b46$18895@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> "me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
> > ALL
> > snip
> >
> > I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in
Europe
> > have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
> it's
> > browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
> > integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead
of
> > expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
> > added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
> >
>
> What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as
Windows
> users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
> that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of
its
> users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating
system
> and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
> program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
> software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
> when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to
do
> these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
> EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what
he
> doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.
>
> snip
>
> > A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
> to
> > be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
> > began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to
check
> my
> > drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
> > changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if
did
> > not fix them.
>
> You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
> ready for events such as this - and you were!
> >
> > It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software
as
> > foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
> and
> > whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
> listening,
> > stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
> > making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
> > other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the
first
> > place, and work on your operating system.
> >
> snip
>
> I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
> for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum
were
> born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
> is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
> write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
> another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand
more
> and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that
demand.
> When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.
>
> People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
> operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now,
but
> I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
> would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs
add-ons
> to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts.
Give
> it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
> and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
> for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
> and Linux does this very well.
>
> I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
> it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
> other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
> virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
> some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
> because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would
be
> the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
> doesn't provide that.
>
> Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
> unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
> difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are
doing
> OK.
>
> DDDD
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Since I love to experiment, I installed SP2 on my XP Pro and I have had zero
problems. No internet stability problems. No Virus problems and one thing I
noticed is that since I have installed SP2 I only get a few spyware results
with Adaware and Spybot. Popups are almost non existant.
I am very happy with what Microsoft has done with the SP2.

I am also running Zero Popup Killer and Avast Antivirus without disabling
the related Microsoft programs.

I have done the updates for XP after installing SP2 and so far - So Good.



"DDDD" <someone@some.one> wrote in message
news:b29e3$4092b502$45234b46$18895@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> "me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
>> ALL
>> snip
>>
>> I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in
>> Europe
>> have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
> it's
>> browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
>> integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead of
>> expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
>> added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
>>
>
> What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as
> Windows
> users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
> that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of
> its
> users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating
> system
> and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
> program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
> software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
> when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to
> do
> these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
> EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what
> he
> doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.
>
> snip
>
>> A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
> to
>> be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
>> began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to check
> my
>> drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
>> changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if
>> did
>> not fix them.
>
> You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
> ready for events such as this - and you were!
>>
>> It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software as
>> foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
> and
>> whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
> listening,
>> stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
>> making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
>> other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the first
>> place, and work on your operating system.
>>
> snip
>
> I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
> for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum
> were
> born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
> is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
> write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
> another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand
> more
> and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that
> demand.
> When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.
>
> People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
> operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now,
> but
> I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
> would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs
> add-ons
> to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts.
> Give
> it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
> and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
> for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
> and Linux does this very well.
>
> I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
> it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
> other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
> virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
> some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
> because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would
> be
> the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
> doesn't provide that.
>
> Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
> unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
> difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are
> doing
> OK.
>
> DDDD
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Expert Edition? Sounds good to me!

The most "bang-per-buck" rules. It would have to be proportionally
priced though. What would that make it... about $40, hehehe.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up on sp2.

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/


On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:00:14 GMT, "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
.. n o> wrote:

>May be there should be 1 more version of windowsXp.
>Other than Home and Professional, which are almost identical. There should
>be an Expert Edition released..
>With reduced price, not including wmp, moviemaker, ie6, outlook ex, msn
>explorer, cd-burning, window-update, auto-adjusting time, and all those bs
>that annoy power users.
>Maybe include more detailed options for file-assosiation, drivers,
>networking and so on.
>
>But that's just asking too much from MS
>
>
>"DDDD" <someone@some.one> wrote in message
>news:b29e3$4092b502$45234b46$18895@allthenewsgroups.com...
>>
>> "me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
>> news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
>> > ALL
>> > snip
>> >
>> > I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in
>Europe
>> > have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
>> it's
>> > browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
>> > integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead
>of
>> > expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
>> > added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
>> >
>>
>> What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as
>Windows
>> users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
>> that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of
>its
>> users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating
>system
>> and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
>> program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
>> software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
>> when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to
>do
>> these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
>> EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what
>he
>> doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
>> to
>> > be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
>> > began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to
>check
>> my
>> > drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
>> > changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if
>did
>> > not fix them.
>>
>> You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
>> ready for events such as this - and you were!
>> >
>> > It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software
>as
>> > foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
>> and
>> > whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
>> listening,
>> > stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
>> > making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
>> > other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the
>first
>> > place, and work on your operating system.
>> >
>> snip
>>
>> I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
>> for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum
>were
>> born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
>> is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
>> write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
>> another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand
>more
>> and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that
>demand.
>> When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.
>>
>> People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
>> operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now,
>but
>> I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
>> would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs
>add-ons
>> to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts.
>Give
>> it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
>> and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
>> for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
>> and Linux does this very well.
>>
>> I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
>> it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
>> other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
>> virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
>> some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
>> because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would
>be
>> the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
>> doesn't provide that.
>>
>> Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
>> unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
>> difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are
>doing
>> OK.
>>
>> DDDD
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:23:45 -0400, "DDDD" <someone@some.one> wrote:

>
>"me" <davebarbs@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
>news:1094t2lc1udp557@corp.supernews.com...
>> ALL
>> snip
>>
>> I wish that the US courts had the guts to do what the courts in Europe
>> have done. Make Microsoft focus on it's core product, and not include
>it's
>> browser, instant messaging, movie maker and media player programs as
>> integral parts of it's already bloated operating system. Now, instead of
>> expending the effort to make the basic operating system safe, they have
>> added a "Security Center" to Windows XP.
>>
>
>What you have to realize is that you are in the minority as far as Windows
>users are concerned. The vast majority of Windows users WANT these extras
>that Microsoft keeps adding. Microsoft is merely answering the call of its
>users. The average user doesn't want to have to install an operating system
>and then have to buy and install a new Browser, e-mail program, virus
>program, firewall and what-have-you. (You generally have to buy new
>software because the other software suppliers don't want to issue updates
>when they can sell a new version.) The average user doesn't know how to do
>these things correctly and welcomes all of these integrated programs. The
>EXPERT user, which includes you, is expected to uninstall or disable what he
>doesn't want and install whatever extras wanted from 2nd party developers.
>
>snip
>
>> A major problem, ( I know that this is just a beta ), with SP2 seems
>to
>> be with third party driver recognition. After installation of XP SP2, I
>> began to experience multiple "Blue Screens of Death", telling me to check
>my
>> drivers. Also Windows would tell me that vital Windows files had been
>> changed to unknown versions, and the sun was going to become a nova if did
>> not fix them.
>
>You, of course know that Beta software is usually unreliable and should be
>ready for events such as this - and you were!
>>
>> It simply amazes me that instead of making sure the basic software as
>> foolproof and safe as humanly possible, Microsoft continues to add bell
>and
>> whistle programs to the basic operating system. Bill, if you are
>listening,
>> stop putting unwanted, unneeded programs in Windows, and concentrate on
>> making your system stable and secure. Forget the add on programs which
>> other companies specialize in, thus creating better programs in the first
>> place, and work on your operating system.
>>
>snip
>
>I don't know what your background in software is, but I have been involved
>for many, many years - probably before most of the people on this forum were
>born. I was teaching programming in 1967. One of the truisms of software
>is that the more code you add, the greater your chances of bugs. I can
>write software to do one function that is totally bug proof. If you add
>another function, the odds of a bug go up. The users of Windows demand more
>and more functions and Microsoft is more than willing to answer that demand.
>When they do, the odds of bugs increases tremendously.
>
>People love to complain that Linux is bug proof and is a much better
>operating system than Windows. I don't agree. It may be bug proof now, but
>I can guarantee you that if they were to keep adding functions, the bugs
>would creep in. It just doesn't do what Windows does now and needs add-ons
>to bring it more into the mainstream. Now is is only for the experts. Give
>it to some of your lesser experienced friends and tell them to install it
>and they will throw up their hands and yell "Uncle". It is a great system
>for a server because you only expect a server to perform limited functions
>and Linux does this very well.
>
>I am amazed at how well XP runs. I have almost no problems and when I do,
>it is usually with old programs that were written for 95, 98 or a version
>other than XP. Microsoft is still having to put out patches to correct
>virus and worm problems, but that is just a testamonial to the genius of
>some of the young hackers out there today. They concentrate on Windows
>because it is the OS of choice. If Linux were more widespread, it would be
>the target of Virus attacks, but the hackers want maximum impact and Linux
>doesn't provide that.
>
>Long post, but I think that a lot of the Windows and Microsoft venom is
>unjustified. I dislike some aspects of Windows, but I recognize the
>difficulty of what they are doing and I, for one, think that they are doing
>OK.
>
>DDDD
>
written like a true descilple of Bill. There was no need to bring
Linux into this thread. As long as you did you might want to point
out that no sane person claims Linux is "bugproof". They do correctly
claim that it is inherently much more secure than anything Microsoft
puts out. This is a design issue in that the folks who started UNIX
designed it to be multi user so they included things in the design
spec to prevent one user from messing up another one or any user from
messing up the system files. The result is a system where most of the
common exploits used against Microsoft products simply won't work.
With Linux, Unix or MAC OS10 the scripted type attacks cannot get to
the core OS to modify or delete files there. This rules out most, if
not all, simple attacks. Like anything else, any OS can be broken by
someone with sufficient knowledge, tools and patience. The complaint